Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 8:23 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

On Oct 9, 10:15 am, BAR wrote:
In article 556f91cc-f256-4845-9f8d-
,
says...

On Oct 7, 7:34 pm, Jim wrote:
Just did a once-over on the docs for 2011 enrollment that came
in
the
mail, and a provider lookup.
Looks like my premiums are about the same as for 2010.

Looks like "Obamacare" caused my employer (large
multi-national)
to
squeeze out the HMO and probably keep the PPO price in check.
Figures, since they're paying 50% and have negotiating clout.

Jim - hehe.

Count yourself as very lucky. Those of us that work at much
smaller
companies saw increases in the 150 - 200% range. Efforts to reel
that
in included concessions like doubling of deductibles and max
out-of-
pockets amounts that range in the $2000-3000 ballpark.

Obamacare is VERY expensive for the majority of Americans.

Jack - not laughing

I haven't seen my 2011 benefits package yet nor has my wife seen
hers.

I work for a company of 40,000 employees and my wife works for a
company
of 170,000 employees. Over the past 5 years or so my health
insurance
has cost about $100 ever two weeks where my wife's has cost about
$200
per week. The plans are very similar but the costs are extremely
different. My cost is $2600 per year and my wife's is $10,400 per
year.
Obviously we go with my insurance.

Those are large enough companies that they can get good deals from
the
insurance companies. I work for a company of 75 employees. When we
went shopping for insurance (after the renewal came in with such a
large hike) several insurance companies told us they were no longer
even offering policies to companies under 100 employees.

So, if we had single-payer, you would be covered.

But, we don't. The Dems went behind closed doors, and forced through
an Obamanation of a healthcare bill that screws everyone that
currently has health insurance. The Dems, idiots they are, addressed
the issue and screwed the pooch. They'll now get properly thrown out
and someone else will have to clean up that mess.

Jack, Jack.... the Dems certainly didn't do all they could, but the
antagonists were certainly the Republicans, who have blocked and continue
to
block every single bit of meaningful legislation related to health care
and
jobs.

The ones who were locked out of the process, who at the time didn't
have the votes to change or stop it? Those Republicans? Em, you are
too easy. This one rests squarely on the dims. Buh-bye.


Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill? Jack, you're an idiot if you think the Republicans nutjobs have
any interest in what's best for this country. At least the Democrats tried.
So, you're afraid of the facts, and you bow out. Got it.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between
55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

Feel free to vote Republican and see what happens. Of course, you're a down
and outer and can't afford a dime more. Sure.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:44:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:57:25 -0500, Jim wrote:

Health care is less "free market" than even auto insurance or cable TV.

We fired our cable company and went to satellite. Auto insurance
seems to have lots of competetion these days, and even boat insurance
is getting better/cheaper.

That's because you don't use your auto or boat insurance every time you
go fill up your tank or get a tune up. They are real insurance. Health
insurance is not real insurance.

I understand your point. It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 11, 10:33*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

Untrue and a gross exaggeration. In a sense, the military is "unfunded" for
a period of time. Most of these mandates require that the insurance
companies, who've been denying people coverage, stop those practices. So,
I'm still waiting for you to tell us which one's you'd prefer not to
have....

Oh wait... you're hiding from me.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

Jack wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those between 55
and 64.
When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

If there's no new legislation correcting the flaws, in 2014 the ****
will hit the fan.
That's when the exchanges and premium tax credits kick in.
And "mandatory" insurance.
Tax credits for those up to 4 x "poverty level."
Sent directly to the insurance companies apparently.
Oddly enough there are reports reports calling these credits "tax
cuts."
Here's a couple examples
http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/new...-cut-800110389
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...x-credits.html

What the hell?
Seems like basic finance/economics knowledge is lacking.
Anything the gov gives in credits must be raised as taxes first.
By not going with a "public option" and instead keeping the private
insurance companies as the sole providers of insurance, you'll get
double taxed - and one rate will be solely controlled by the failed
American health care insurance industry.
Though they're under pressure now to keep rates in check.

I really hope the supremes find the mandatory payments to private
insurance companies unconstitutional.
Then a Medicare buy-in might happen.
But given how both Dems and Reps are in the pocket of any organization
that can pump $millions into their coffers, it might not happen.
It's a shame how corrupt and gutless our pols are.
No surprise there's a Tea Party. No surprise at all.

Jim - Three card monte is most practiced by politicians.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.

When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

Untrue and a gross exaggeration. In a sense, the military is "unfunded"
for
a period of time. Most of these mandates require that the insurance
companies, who've been denying people coverage, stop those practices. So,
I'm still waiting for you to tell us which one's you'd prefer not to
have....

Oh wait... you're hiding from me.


I agree we won't raise taxes, that is not politically viable. We will
just borrow more money. Unfortunately the insurance companies do not
have that option so rates are going higher.



For-profit companies should not be involved in people's basic health
decisions. Still... no one has answered the question of which items you
would prefer to do without...

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:33 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Better coverage for early retirees to help reduce costs for those
between 55
and 64.
When does that happen? My costs doubled

There are some nice sounding things in the list. Unfortunately, they
are unfunded mandates. It's all of us that have to fund them now. In
this case, the dims taxed us indirectly and without calling it a tax.
The huge tax increase is coming as well.

If there's no new legislation correcting the flaws, in 2014 the ****
will hit the fan.
That's when the exchanges and premium tax credits kick in.
And "mandatory" insurance.
Tax credits for those up to 4 x "poverty level."
Sent directly to the insurance companies apparently.
Oddly enough there are reports reports calling these credits "tax
cuts."
Here's a couple examples
http://www.usinsuranceonline.com/new...-cut-800110389
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...x-credits.html

What the hell?
Seems like basic finance/economics knowledge is lacking.
Anything the gov gives in credits must be raised as taxes first.
By not going with a "public option" and instead keeping the private
insurance companies as the sole providers of insurance, you'll get
double taxed - and one rate will be solely controlled by the failed
American health care insurance industry.
Though they're under pressure now to keep rates in check.

I really hope the supremes find the mandatory payments to private
insurance companies unconstitutional.
Then a Medicare buy-in might happen.
But given how both Dems and Reps are in the pocket of any organization
that can pump $millions into their coffers, it might not happen.
It's a shame how corrupt and gutless our pols are.
No surprise there's a Tea Party. No surprise at all.

Jim - Three card monte is most practiced by politicians.



According to you. I guess legislation, after it's written, is never
amended... according to you of course.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:44:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:57:25 -0500, Jim wrote:

Health care is less "free market" than even auto insurance or cable TV.

We fired our cable company and went to satellite. Auto insurance
seems to have lots of competetion these days, and even boat insurance
is getting better/cheaper.

That's because you don't use your auto or boat insurance every time you
go fill up your tank or get a tune up. They are real insurance. Health
insurance is not real insurance.

I understand your point. It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate... this is slightly out of date, but gives
the big picture.

http://www.neurosurgical.com/medical..._insurance.htm

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 12, 3:03*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html


Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.


You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...berations.html


You should also take a look at Mr. Roff's previous posts and his current
affiliation. He's got an agenda, which isn't exactly balanced. Not saying
the article was inaccurate, but there's clearly a theme to his writing.

http://politics.usnews.com/topics/author/roff_peter

Can the White House prove that they're not doing anything wrong? - proving a
negative?
The Tea Party is bringing average citizens into elective politics. - right,
sure.
The midterms are a referendum on Barack Obama's first two years in the White
House. - more of a referendum on Congress in general.
John Boehner is a reformer? WHAT??
The existence of the Tea Party is a culture clash to the former
counter-culture activists on the left. - yeah, a bunch of well-off, angry
white guys.
For Obama to get his administration back on track to 2012 he needs to make
some changes in the cabinet. - sure... fire people who can get stuff
done...that makes sense.
The Tea Party movement tells women don't need the help of government. They
need it to get out of their way. - Fine. Stop blocking women's health
legislation would be a good start.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:09:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate...

Perhaps not every "i" is dotted but it's pretty close for a short two
sentence summary.

My point, confirmed by your article, is that this whole notion of
"health coverage" as an entitlement is a recent thing. The jury is
still out on whether or not this can be provided to everyone without
wrecking the US economy even more than it already is.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 12, 5:05*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But, some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith. That's the point. They had every opportunity to
contribute in a constructive way, and they refused to do it for purely
political reasons.

The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch. It's lacking in some
respects, but that's typical of most legislation. It can and should be
fixed, but it shouldn't be gutted, which is exactly what the right-wing nuts
want to do, along with ending Social Security and Medicare of course, not to
mention ending unemployment benefits for people.

Insurance rates have gone up and will continue to go up. They would have
done that (and did that) way before the legislation. You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

So, what's your solution? Vote in Tea Baggers who are barely qualified (and
I'm being generous)?

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:09:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It is important to remember how health
insurance started: It was offered as a fringe benefit by employers
as an inducement to attract and retain good employees. Then it
morphed into an entittlement starting with Medicare/Medicaid.


That's not completely accurate...

Perhaps not every "i" is dotted but it's pretty close for a short two
sentence summary.

My point, confirmed by your article, is that this whole notion of
"health coverage" as an entitlement is a recent thing. The jury is
still out on whether or not this can be provided to everyone without
wrecking the US economy even more than it already is.


It hasn't wrecked other countries' economies, so why would ours be
different. The same was said of women's suffrage. The same was said of civil
rights legislation. If we wait until the "jury is in" to try and make a
positive change, then we will surely suffer. People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:21:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

People complain about
entitlements, as though the are terrible things. They aren't. Ask an
average
senior if she's willing to give up her SS or Medicare (or for that matter
anyone even close to collecting it)... I think we both know what they'll
say.

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 12, 6:17*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

....

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.) are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr....

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it, and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been. But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. *And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. *In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. *In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. *Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.


You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support, something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody’s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now — plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 12, 6:17 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...





On Oct 12, 5:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

On Oct 12, 3:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:37:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Locked out? Then how did all those Republican ideas get
incorporated
into
the bill?
Because they were good ideas? They weren't any secret

Yes, they were good ideas, but the Republicans (and wackos esp.)
are
claiming they were locked out of the process. Apparently not.

You apparently have selective memory.

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/b...0/01/04/democr...

Nice post. Thanks. Unfortunately, it wasn't all that secret was it,
and
it
certainly wasn't as effective as "secret" reform should have been.
But,
some
half-way decent legislation did pass, and there will be decent
benefits
for
people, esp. those who lacked insurance or were cancelled.

I never claimed it was "secret", just that one side of the aisle was
locked out. And yes, Roff is opinionated, but that was just the first
article from *many* sources that I grabbed a URL from. In the end,
there was an effort by the Dems to rush a severly flawed bill through
while excluding the Republicans from participating in the normal
process. In that there is no doubt.

The bill, while it does have some good ideas, is so severely flawed
that it will likely not survive in any recognizable form. Meanwhile
insurance rate have gone up and will not come back down, and both
industries (medical and insurance) still have not been "fixed".

Meanwhile the congress-critters have a gold-plated policy that we pay
for, and the band plays on.

Well, they weren't "locked out" either, at least not until they refused
to
cooperate in good faith.

Then you admit they *were* locked out.

It's really hard to argue that they were locked out if they refused to enter
the room to begin with. Eventually, the door closes and business gets done.


The noise from the right about Obama's terrible doings is pretty hard to
miss. The facts are a bit different. He's very middle of the road, not
even
close to being a radical. Most of the Republicans who claimed to be
middle
of the road have moved FAR to the right.

So you say.

Not I. Most people say this. Are you going to claim that McCain is middle of
the road if he panders to the Teabaggers to get elected? He used to be an
honorable guy. What happened?


What passed was not "severely flawed" by any stretch.

It's far beyond severly flawed. It's unworkable.

So you say.

You're correct that
neither the medical profession or the business of insurance have not be
fixed, but that's a huge issue that requires bipartisan support,
something
the Republicans will not do!

Yeah, the Dems showed their bipartisan colors, didn't they? Or more
correctly, their complete lack of.

Would you expect the party in power not to show partisan colors? Were the
Republicans during Bush inclusive and non-partisan?

You're so wrong on this. Millions won't have insurance if this thing
isn't repealed. And the people that do will be paying far more for
it.

?? 30+ million are insured now that weren't before. How is that fewer than
before? Please cite some factoid that claims that.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...care_blowback/

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody’s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now — plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."


It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/10 12:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

They're not my indicators.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining
about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut?

Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that
accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant mortality?
How about life expectancy? How about medical outcomes per dollar spent? We
certainly don't have the highest stand when you consider all those things.
If you mean, do we drive the biggest cars with the worst mileage, then sure.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.


And those indicators are?? I'm happy to hear it. I'd love to hear it!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:06:10 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.

That is the thing people want to ignore.
Sure they have "free" health care in Canada but their tax rate is
about 20% higher than ours.
"Free" starts looking pretty expensive when you run your 1040 against
a Canadian tax return. They are online and simpler than ours so it is
not hard to try for yourself.
When I ran mine on the Ontario web site I would have been paying
$14,000 more in 2009 (I didn't try 2010 but that would have been worse
since 2010 was the lowest tax rate I have paid since 1965 ... when I
was in the service.)

Please tell us who is advocating a Canadian-style system? Nobody here,
except maybe some Canadians who like what they have.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 13, 1:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/10 1:12 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On 10/13/2010 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax
rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of
life for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.



Here's one set of indicators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

There are others. The United States is not first in quality of life. It
probably is first among modern western nations in disparity of income
between the wealthy and the middle class, but the fact that a relatively
few have tremendous wealth does not mean a country has a high quality of
life.


--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 13, 12:46*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, Jim wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:46 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:25:09 -0400, wrote:
There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Frankly I don't believe that when you measure quality by the same
indicators that most of us do.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Stan...ed:States.html

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

While the article also mentions some low points, it points out some
mitigating factors that must be considered, such as the diversity in
the population and culture and the differences in geographic
locations.

In the end, the US is among the top few countries in the world.



http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010/

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of
life.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 13, 1:25*pm, Jack wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201....

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? *You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. *My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. *As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. *Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. *Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. *How
much of that do you like?

They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told
them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because
their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance
costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they
have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't
matter to the intellectually impaired...

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On 10/13/10 1:53 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:

They won't accept facts, they just keep spouting what Olbermann told
them to say. I noted two young adults who lost their insurance because
their parents couldn't afford the "new" twenty something insurance
costs on their insurance. This is fact, I know these guys and they
have both stopped riding because of it. But again, real facts don't
matter to the intellectually impaired...


You're a liar. Why would anyone believe anything you post? You can't
even be honest on your web services website.

--
I'm not a warlock . . . I'm you!

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Oct 13, 1:50*pm, Secular Humouresque wrote:
On 10/13/10 1:39 PM, Jack wrote:



"The standard of living in the United States is one of the highest in
the world by almost any measure. On measures such as the UN Human
Development Index the United States is always in the top ten."

"Americans are some of the wealthiest people in the world, with a very
high GDP per capita. Americans are top in the world for most material
possessions."

High GDP and material possessions are not the indicators of quality of
life.

Lack of money and having no material possessions are not indicators of
a good quality of life, at least by the vast majority of people.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There are many countries now that provide a much higher quality of life
for the majority of their citizens.

Exactly.

Pardon my skepticism but I'd like you to name a few of these countries
and tell us why their quality of life is higher. I've traveled quite
a bit and have seen very few places where the average citizen comes
even close. Canada is certainly right up there by many measures but
they can keep winter. That's why we have so many of them in SWFL.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:12:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:13:08 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That's the problem with entitlements. Once they're out there, they
become a sacred right. For a variety of reasons US manufacturing has
become uncompetetive in the world market place. Increased
entitlements and the resulting higher tax rates can only make the
problem worse. A service based economy can only take you so far.
Sooner or later you have to make something or have enough foreign
exchange to purchase it elsewhere. Right now we are extending IOUs to
fund our imports but sooner or later those chips will be called in.


So, which ones are you willing to give up? We have a fairly low tax rate
already, certainly vs. the rest of the world.

You conveniently miss the point: The discussion is/was about
starting new entitlements not getting rid of the existing ones. In
addition to having lower tax rates than many other countries, we also
have a much higher standard of living. Unfortunately that is likely
to change.


I didn't conveniently miss anything. All the Teabaggers are complaining
about deficits right? So, which programs do they want to cut?

I am not a teabagger, not by a long shot. They are just as rabid as
the loony left. You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Your claim that we have a much higher standard of living isn't that
accurate. It depends is a more accurate comment. How about infant mortality?
How about life expectancy?

We have a very diverse population demographic in this country and some
of those segments have very unhealthy lifestyles and make bad
decisions about lots of other things. No governmental program is
going to fix that, and broad based statistics get dragged down as a
result.

How about medical outcomes per dollar spent?

I have no idea how to evaluate that.

Health Care Enrollment - Looks good
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Oct 13, 1:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...d/articles/201...

"Meanwhile, 30 major corporations are still able to offer low-cost
health insurance to their employees only because they have received
one-year waivers of the new rules from the Department of Health and
Human Services. What happens when those waivers expire is anybody�s
guess. But this much is clear: If the law with its expensive mandates
remains on the books, millions of Americans are going to lose the
health care plans they have now � plans the president repeatedly
promised they could keep."

It's an opinion piece. Cite some facts.

Why? You didn't cite a single article or "factoid", you just
presented *your* opinion. My article, if you had actually read it,
was not an opinion piece but offered solid facts of people losing
their insurance because of obamacare. As they point out if you are
required to insure people and provide expanded benefits that weren't
there before, that extra money will have to come from somewhere, or
the insurance company will simply close up shop. Then they cite
examples.

Insurance costs are being driven up by obamacare. Insurance companies
are shutting down, leaving people uninsured because of obamacare. How
much of that do you like?


I have an opinion, the author had an opinion, and you have an opinion. I've
cited facts many times that support the proposition that the insurance
reform was flawed but better than what was previously in place.

If your opinion is that the costs will go up, that's fine, but it's not a
fact that has been actually verified. It's an opinion.

How much do I like of an item that isn't actually a fact is sort of a
non-question.